HDDs Burners and IDE Oh My!!

[John H]

All,

I need some advice. I am building a machine to eventually do some home
video editing. I have a 80GB, 200GB, a CD burner, and an eventual DVD
burner down the road.

Using just the primary and secondary IDE -- what is the best layout for
these (e.g. which to set as master/slave)

thanks!


JohnH

 

[DaveW]

80GB---Ide1Master (boot drive)
200GB--Ide1Slave
DVD-RW--Ide2Master
CD-RW----Ide2Slave
This arrangement will get you the best data transfer rates and the least
hardware conflicts.

 

[Will Dormann]

All,

I need some advice. I am building a machine to eventually do some home
video editing. I have a 80GB, 200GB, a CD burner, and an eventual DVD
burner down the road.

Using just the primary and secondary IDE -- what is the best layout for
these (e.g. which to set as master/slave)

I'd recommend something like this:

80GB-----Ide1Master (boot drive)
DVD-RW---Ide1Slave
200GB----Ide2Master
CD-RW----Ide2Slave

When organizing your drives, you need to consider your traffic patterns.
Only you can answer this for sure, but I'm going to assume that you
want high performance in the following cases:

1) Copying files from one HD to another
2) Copying files from your large HD to the DVD-RW
3) Accessing both HDs simultaneously

Arranging your devices so that high traffic is always going from one
channel to another will give you the best results. Now if cabling the
above is infeasible, then go ahead and wire it whichever way is most
convenient physically.


-WD

 

[Paul Trimble]

I would suggest having the 2 HDD's on one channel.

PT

 

[philo]

All,

I need some advice. I am building a machine to eventually do some home
video editing. I have a 80GB, 200GB, a CD burner, and an eventual DVD
burner down the road.

Using just the primary and secondary IDE -- what is the best layout for
these (e.g. which to set as master/slave)

thanks!


JohnH

it probably won't make a terrible lot of difference how you do it

however Nero recommends that if you are copying cd's

to keep the source on a seperate ide channel than the target drive

 

[Sooky Grumper]

80GB---Ide1Master (boot drive)
200GB--Ide1Slave
DVD-RW--Ide2Master
CD-RW----Ide2Slave
This arrangement will get you the best data transfer rates and the least
hardware conflicts.

Out of curiousity, with the new 80wire IDE cables (as opposed to the old
old old 40 ones) is transfer speed restricted to 33 if you have a cdrom
on one connection and a ATA133 HDD on another on the same IDE ribbon, or
do the new 80 wire ribbons remove that problem (if it even existed in
the first place...)?

 

[Will Dormann]

Out of curiousity, with the new 80wire IDE cables (as opposed to the old
old old 40 ones) is transfer speed restricted to 33 if you have a cdrom
on one connection and a ATA133 HDD on another on the same IDE ribbon, or
do the new 80 wire ribbons remove that problem (if it even existed in
the first place...)?

It's not even 80-conductor vs. 40-conductor that makes the difference.
It's the IDE controller. Any halfway-modern controller supports
independent timing.
http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/if/ide/confTiming.html

i.e., putting an ATA33 device on the same channel as an ATA100 drive
won't automatically downgrade the whole channel to ATA33 speed. The
speed will change depending on which device you're using.


-WD